May 2, 2008

ADDED: And I should say that I think Hillary Clinton looked great sparring with Bill O'Reilly. It worked out really well — for both of them. It's insane for Democrats not to try to reach all the people who watch Fox News. And you only look weak avoiding it. Now, the netroots look foolish bitching about it — but all their muscle-flexing and bragging about power and vengeful foot-stamping has always looked foolish.

I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly. It's not like anyone who watches Mr. Falafel is actually going to vote for her. And he'll just get Dick Morris on a couple days later to tell everyone what an act of desperation it was.

Fox is an arm of the Republican party. Why the Democrats would bother with it is beyond me. Wallace is the only one at the whole network who makes an effort at being fair and balanced--and that is half-hearted at best.

The democratic candidates and Howard Dean can obviously do something the 'troots seem unable to: count viewers some of which will translate into votes. Of course, the 'troots inability to count is only matched by their inability to grasp reality. Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch.

Roger, Bill O'Reilly was involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lady claimed in a sexy phone conversation when he was suggesting they shower together, that he said "falafel" when he apparently meant loofah.

Incidentally, I've never eaten a falafel. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Oh, and Ann, now that you correct your title -- awesome blogpost title. Quite right too.

Uh-oh. Looks like Team Obama just got busted using a doctored video in Indiana.

Yep. Game on. Enough of the triple bank shot attacks. I've got "This is the End" by the Doors cued on the IPOD, enemy war paint on, and I'll be heaving molotovs at these cocksuckers until they beg to stop. I'll be a Republican before I unite with these cretins. If this takes some sort of conversion process, like sweating it out in the woodshed for a week like Miles Davis breaking his heroin habit, so be it. My oldest is only 10, but I'm seriously thinking about taking him along for his first hunt.

It was great for Hillary because she got credit for going up against O'Reilly. And he makes a big thing about who is willing to face him and who isn't. She had the balls to do so, and that counts with his audience, not all of whom are registered Republicans.

And it was great for him, since he got record ratings out of it.

If Obama doesn't go on the Factor, then he will look like a pansy in relation to Hillary! Already does some, and this would just make it look worse.

"I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly." --I can hear Hillary now--geee, should I appear on Olberman? nahh in the tank for Obama; should I appear with Chris Matthews? Not much viewership there either; [lightbulb comes on]I know, I can go on OReilly, and look a lot tougher than that pansy I am running against. And have a lot more audience and coverage. Clearly Hillary is a bit more reality based than is FF. smart move, Hill.

Yeah, but get distracted and way over-fry falafel balls, and you get something that could be USED as a loofah. Trust me on this one.

***

I think of lot of O'Reilly fans are populists, and populists can come in different flavors. For this reason, I think the premise of Freder's statement is fundamentally flawed, and I can certainly imagine a sector of O'Reilly's audience going for Hillary, in the context of the choices at hand.

Perhaps by dealing with the evil Other, Hillary and O'Reilly both came out of the exchange for the better. It was obvious that they both wanted this to be a sensible, adult conversation. And you always get more out of debating with someone who disagrees and is willing to defend his/her reasons for disagreeing. O'Reilly does that more that H!, but he often just talks over his guests rather than engaging their points. The problem all along with the Dem "debates" is that the candidates never seemed to engage much of anything (beyond Bush bashing, of course, even when they agreed with him).

I was always surprised the Democrats were so weeney-esque as to refuse to go on Fox News in the first place. The thing I found even more perplexing is how little scorn was heaped their way for it. The GOP got more flack over the YouTube debate, when they tried to duck that one.

The Dems, I've come to believe, are Fascists at heart. They yearn for a one party system and media propounding a single message. I'm sorry to have to say this because I've long thought them the lovelier of the two parties. But that's no longer the case. Something terrible has happened and I dare say, it cannot be reversed. The interwebs has made all this apparent. On the individual level though, there's still a measure of hope but not much. In groups, they're intolerable -- rather like a chorus -- gay chorus, they all grunt, moan, and pfffft at the same time on cue without rehearsing and without even being aware of it. "Fox" is such a cue, as are the words, "Republican", "Bush", and "Texas". A finer example of forced conformity cannot be found. I've yet to meet a Liberal that doesn't gleefully hop aboard every single bandwagon that goes trundling past eager to be first among all in indignantly expounding the latest in social fads.

For those up there ↑ having so much difficulty understanding things, the reason they appear on Fox is because that's where the viewers are, you silly twats. Like it or not and irrespective of your constant snipes. I know it pains you to the core but the numbers don't lie. Stop acting so astounded. People out there actually think differently than you. Wow. Imagine that. Plus, O'Reilly is a hoot. (You probably haven't noticed your beloved MSM doesn't bother with two sides. Have you? There, you get one side and one side only. The prescribed truth. Yes, Fox is conservative, but where else are you even going to hear anything like that. Why do I bother? You're too far gone. Here, have yourself a Zinn.

O'Reilly's is really an entertainer and Hillary came off great. She was entertaining and personable and she had a chance to talk to a lot of people who normally dismiss her. Some of them might temper their dislike of her a tad when they see her in just such a situation. Now she can really make the netroots heads explode when she calls into Rush. He would be respectfully if combative and once again he is really an entertainer at heart. With the ratings and attention that would bring, she would be sure to get a bounce, just not in the rabib jacobite sections of kosworld.

Has Michael Moore ever gotten a sit-down interview with McCain? His documentary was the highest-grossing ever, but I guess everyone who bought tickets was a park avenue fatcat, so I guess he's not populist enough (a self-made man who made his name taking on the ceo of GM in Roger and Me)...

Or maybe McCain can do an hour interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now. They can go over McCain's record of contradictory statements, reversals and flip flops on Iraq and tax cuts.

Hmmm.

p.s. those weren't "allegations" about O'Reilly sexually harassing a subordinate. It was recorded on tape. He settled with her to get the lawsuit dismissed.(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html)

The vibe I get is that Obama doesn't want to dignify O'Reilly with a response. While I don't care whether he appears on O'Reilly or not, I think Obama needs to be careful about that vibe, in terms of the general election, at least.

This was one of her very best appearances, because it gave her an opportunity to demonstrate what kind of a general election candidate she would be. Obama gets that chance pretty regularly, because the Republicans treat him like the nominee. But here you see her having a real debate with someone who's on the conservative side, and who's attacking her ideas from the right. This is really where she's at her best, and it shows how good she could be in a debate with McCain.

I thought she was at her best talking about Iran and also responding to O'Reilly's attack on her health care plan. He trashed her plan, said it would bankrupt the country, and that Moses would have to come down for it to be pulled off. People who think she doesn't have an instinct for political rhetoric should just look at how she immediately turned the Moses line around with, "And on those tablets, this is what's gonna be written..."

If anyone watched the rest of those two episodes, he had a series of guests lined up ready to trash her appearance from the right and the left--some Obama supporters, Dennis Miller, etc.--and they could barely say anything bad about it.

One quick note: I didn't like how O'Reilly said, "You know, your husband and I make a lot of money," and other times made statements along those lines, as if she hasn't made any and is just living off Bill. He's made more than her, but she's rich too. She was paid $10 million or whatever for her book. That came across as sexist to me.

Christopher: I actually took that as his way of attenuating what might have been seen as an attack on her; "you've made a lot of money" might seem more like a criticism, especially in the eyes of some of her supporters. I don't know if that was his intention, but it's the impression I had while I watched it.

Freder Frederson said... I honestly don't see what good it does for Hillary to appear on O'Reilly

As Joe & Mika noted on rival network MSNBC, Hillary went toe to toe and did well, and they also noted that O'Reillys ratings for the two Hillary appearances were through the roof as her supporters were pulled over to Fox as well as the curious. Fox also made the appearance available to Hillaristas for distillation down to U-Tube and viral video bites.

***************I imagine that Clinton's team is also regretting caving to Nutroots and Moveon.org and not agreeing to the CBC-Fox debate at a time when other media was in their "Coming Black Messiah" adulation phase.It might have helped her in earlier contests that voters with no hint as to Obama's past and his judgement outside his "2002 Iraq speech went with the new guy & Preacher Speechifier the media loved and who they by omission, set up as almost without flaw and who was going to change all politics....*******************Garage - and I'll be heaving molotovs at these cocksuckers until they beg to stop. I'll be a Republican before I unite with these cretins.On the other side, there are a host of people that feel the same way about the treacherous old dimbulb McCain and his team of morons.My oldest is only 10, but I'm seriously thinking about taking him along for his first hunt.Team Obama - *sigh* - You're only saying you wish to acquaint your children with evil weapons because you are ill-educated, don't have a great-paying job, and bitterly retreat into barbaric things like non-black supremacist Christianity and hunting.

*****************Drill SGT - If Obama can't handle O'Reilly, how can he talk to dictators?

Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, told Politico by phone that progressive activists and the Netroots are “not happy about it.... I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants"

the Netroots are “not happy about it.... I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants"

Clearly the 'base' is suffering from a serious case of inflated self-worth.

I will say this, I find it interesting that Obama thinks he can bring us all together yet he still can't unite his own frigging party against the Wicked Witch of Arkansas (I say that with respect garage). If his uniting and leadership qualities were so strong, one would have thought Hill would have been a grease stain in the primary process by now considering his near messianic aura and rhetoric. Yet she's still in there and surging.

Many thanks Ms Victoria. Loofah--falafel--I can understand the confusion :)

No, no, no, you don't understand. It's prima facie evidence of his intellectual, moral and probably physical incapacity to..uh...to...agree with the left on everything? (I'm not sure what they're after, really.)

O'Reilly is many things, but as pointed out, he's not really conservative. Populism is more a source of leftist politics. (He does seem socially conservative, though. Social conservatism + big government leftism ... eaaugh. No wonder I can't watch him.)

God I never thought I would agree with Althouse, but there it is. Those Obama supporters on The Huff Post and even on his official web site are horrifying. What's wrong with them? How could anyone work with them? I'm really concerned about their mental health.

To what degree, and in what specific ways, do populism and progressivism, intersect, overlap, part company, or operate as entirely different entities? Now and historically?

Populism's central theme is "the people" versus "the elites". That everyone knows.

What is more tortured in US politics, is that the very premise of the United States being founded, is itself populist. You separated yourself from an elitist, controlling, condenscending, and aristocratic country, then controlled by the Whig party (who were more populist, if you will, than the Tories of that or any other day).

Both right-wing and left-wings in the US have spoken populist rhetoric whenever possible.

Consider the "America Party", which is better known as The Know Nothing Party, which hated Irish-Catholic ascendancy and sought to curb immigration in the 1850s.

As a nativist party, they preyed on the fears of ordinary Americans losing jobs (just folks) to immigrants, in what has been the constant leitmotif in America.

NOTE: The Know Nothings were a splinter group of the Whig/Democratic party (confusingly they were known as the American Republican Party too), and were against the leadership of the Democratic Party, many of whom were Irish-Americans. So "elites" for them meant those in power, or with influence, or seeking power, confusingly enough.

You can see shades of this in the anti-Obama worries.

Populism therefore was one of those plug-and-play ideologies, not limited to either right or left in this country.

In the volatile early to mid twentieth century, populism was more intimately connected to the Democratic Party, since Republicans were seen as the party of wealth and elitism. You weren't a Republican unless you were rich, well-to-do, educated, or surprisingly until FDR came along, black Americans (remember, the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves).

But after Robert Taft, the President's son, and noted isolationist, the Republicans started shifting. As Democrats became more leftist, in the full sense of the word (more socially and ideologically progressive), the Republicans seized on the "common man" theme, and have not let go since Nixon, the man who counted on the "Silent Majority".

Reagan made liberal a dirty word, based on the perception that the Democrats were a party run by elitist academics and millionaires out of touch with the common man.

The demise of the unions, the insistence on internationalisation as opposed to national appeal, and a toughening stance on traditionalism allowed a lot of previously blue-collar folk to come over to the party of Reagan.

Nothing I've said is really that new, so please take this as a refresher of sorts, which you can contest at will. :)

I agree that O'Reilly is a populist, but I disagree that he is not a Conservative, based on all this above.

He's a traditionalist. He's fiscally conservative, tough on crime, and insistent on defending the United States above all else (hence, he's a nationalist not an internationalist).

By every modern measure of American conservatism, he's a Conservative.

I was issuing an invitation for people to state their definitions and sense of history, and then to think about them a bit and extend the concepts. Interesting that the two responses so far were from two people who 1) weren't among the people I was thinking weren't clear on this stuff, but 2) who apparently think I am among those people.

LOL. A clarifying moment, of which I do, and will, take good note.

(I'd beg to differ over your conception, and definition, of O'Reilly, Victoria, except that I feel more drawn by contemplating that clarifying moment. So carry on!)